I think Thurott is asking the wrong questions here. He says that Windows machines are too expensive - that Microsoft needs to retreat from its tactic of seeking

I think Thurott is asking the wrong questions here. He says that Windows machines are too expensive - that Microsoft needs to retreat from its tactic of seeking a higher ASP. But the elephant is the room is clear - Apple manages to sell truckloads of laptops with a far higher ASP - and with no touchscreens to boot. Why are people willing to splash out for an Apple machine, but not for Windows? I think the answer is clearly prestige. For people like us, when we choose a new computer, we tend to buy sausage over sizzle (which is not to say that the allure of sizzle isn't lost on us.) So we're willing to spend fairly large sums of money on either Apple or Windows machines, whichever lets us do what we want to do best. We're educated, we're willing to research and understand the relative advantages and disadvantages of different OSes, different laptops, custom-built desktops, different components, etc. Naturally the vast majority of consumers are nothing like us. They know little to nothing about computers, and because there are so many options out there in computers, they feel extremely anxious because they have no idea how to choose one. As a result, they buy sizzle, because sizzle makes them feel less anxious about buying something. Who has the best sizzle? Apple. Are Apple products really the best? Doesn't matter - Apple makes their customers feel safe spending money. If you hear non-tech literate people talking about computers, who are they talking about nine times out of ten? Apple. Or maybe Android. Windows? No. Touchscreen laptops? No. Not even the best new W8 models - eg. the Yoga. They're there in the shops, the ads are on tv, but no normal people are talking about them. They're all busy talking about the iPhone 5, or the iPad. Microsoft's selling strategy - a rough-around-the-edges OS sold on hundreds of different OEM machines, 95% of which are pretty crappy for all sorts of different reasons - bad build quality, shitty trackpads, rubbish battery life, bloatware, poor customer support - has ruined their reputation among consumers. The stain of generic, confusing, quality-agnostic OEMs has polluted their brand. All the time Microsoft was busy selling whatever crap people would buy, Apple was selling only a handful of carefully-chosen products. Apple sold less in the short term, but their restraint is paying off massively now, because they never polluted their brand. They still have a brand they can sell. Microsoft doesn't, except for Office maybe. The neat thing about how Apple's strategy works is that their lower-priced products don't compete with the rest of their range. Consumers don't buy iPod Touches instead of iPads, or iPads instead of Macbooks. Kids buy iPod Touches, which is as much as they can afford, and then their iPod Touch makes them aspire to buy an iPad. Then they buy an iPad when they can afford it, and again they aspire to a Macbook. Apple protects its high-end products well. Importantly, at every stage, at every income point, consumers are willing to prioritise buying an Apple product. Even iTunes and the App Store help Apple skim the cream off consumer's disposable income. It's a great system, with desirable, non-competitive products at every price point. All the while computer stores are filled with masses of generic Windows boxes, competing against and drowning out some of the better, less-generic models - and nobody really cares. Microsoft has rushed right into its next-generation OS, launching it on as many different PC models as possible, trying to accelerate its app ecosystem to life as quickly as possible. I personally think Microsoft should have taken it slower, though maybe things will improve over time - Microsoft has a knack for persistence. I can however see Microsoft trying to do too much too soon, missing the opportunity for a real refresh, perpetuating the same problem of appearing try-hard and incoherent to consumers, tainting it app store with prolonged early irrelevance, failing to create a splash which a next-gen OS could have made, and giving Apple plenty of opportunity to watch and learn. Thurott's advice is to drive for even-lower prices - polluting an already tainted brand even further. I would argue the opposite is necessary. Microsoft needs to cut the cruft, somehow, take its time, dial back its strident "look how great we are!" marketing, and develop some real, quiet, unforced confidence. If you're quiet and confident, and its clear you respect yourself, you don't need to run around trying to get people's attention. People will pay attention to you, given time. Patience pays off. That's the lesson of Apple I think. That's why I think Ballmer is not a great CEO. He never quits yelling about how great Windows is, how everything is fine in Microsoft land. There's no humility.